I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Redskins3D]

Peter already covered it and I largely agree with him.

 

I have no political leanings on scientific issues. 

 

LOL plenty of people have called Ted Cruz an idiot, but I don't see you holding back. I haven't followed this thread, but if you were to look back, would I find a post of you calling out democrats? 

 

I find accepting climate change but doing nothing about it more egregious than people that don't accept it fighting increased bureaucracy. 

Edited March 15, 2015 by Redskins3D

[No Excuses]

I find accepting climate change but doing nothing about it more egregious than people that don't accept it fighting increased bureaucracy. 

 

That's a really weird position to hold but whatever floats your boat. This issue is mostly a Republican problem and thus they will get called out. Democrats inability to get something done is meant for another thread. Hint: read the title of the thread, its mostly aimed at flat out denial, rather than an inability to take action.

 

Feel free to visit a GMO or vaccination thread, and you will find me slamming liberals on those issues. If you want to create a thread on why Dems are incapable of legislating conservation policies, I will gladly partake in it too.

Edited March 15, 2015 by No Excuses

[Redskins3D]

That's a really weird position to hold but whatever floats your boat. This issue is mostly a Republican problem and thus they will get called out. Democrats inability to get something done is meant for another thread. Hint: read the title of the thread, its mostly aimed at flat out denial, rather than an inability to take action.

 

 

It's not inability to action, flying 2 jumbo jets is an action. It's also a situation that speaks to how absurd the thread title is. 

[PeterMP]

Didn't notice you having a problem with the First couple taking separate Jumbo Jets cross country. 

 

Conservation is a big part. Truly, I don't think the top of either party has any commitment to t climate change. Democrats just have the luxury of blaming Republicans because of a vocal subset of conservative deniers.  

The Democrats have the luxury to blame the Republicans because the Republicans use it an an issue to win elections in certain states.

 

The Democrats aren't committed to it in the context of they aren't willing to do the ground work to turn it into a positive electoral issue, and they aren't willing to take electoral losses to get it done (nobody is willing to sacrafice their political career for it).

 

But the Republicans by and large (the vast majority) are over on the other side and not just not committed to it, but committed to preventing it from happening.

 

And if and when they can, the Democrats should beat them up over it.

[Skins24]

I find accepting climate change but doing nothin

Man, you brought up a good hypothetical point . Say we do everything and completely end our part in helping the earth warm. The earth will continue to warm, a very good thing. So, what rate of warming are we humans willing to accept? If the earth warms slower or faster than we like, what do we do?

[RedskinsFan44]

Bad things about rapid (relatively) warming of the Earth:

Loss of coastal land due to sea-level rise from ice melting and thermal expansion of the oceans. Naval bases at Newport News for instance.

Expansion of tropical diseases.

Loss of coral reefs from bleaching. This combined with loss of wetlands is very bad for ocean fisheries.

And even if you don't buy the physics of CO2 trapping heat in the atmosphere the detrimental effects of acidification of the oceans is enough to warrant efforts to cut emissions.

[PeterMP]

I highly doubt Ted Cruz cares about getting NASA to focus more into space exploration rather than climate science. 

 

The real issue, the way I interpret it, is that it's not as easy to sling mud at NASA about climate change. It's an agency that has a great deal of credibility with the US public and a solid reputation world wide. So when NASA is telling you loud and clear that climate change is an issue and is being driven by human activity, people will listen and pay attention.

 

That's inconvenient for hacks like Cruz. So while NASA may have strayed from its intended mission of space exploration, they do serve a vital function as a reliable and trustworthy public source of information on climate change.

 

1.  I think you over estimate the influence NASA has, at least with respect to climate change.  High ranking NASA scientists have supported doing something about climate change for about 2 decades now.  But we are as far from actually doing anything than ever.  Sometimes bringing in new people/organizations helps.  The BEST temperature series did more to diminish (it isn't gone) talk about issues with the global temperature data than anything before it.

 

2.  Even if you think the person that you are dealing with has some nefarious objective, I think it is best to deal with the actual facts and information.

 

Ted Cruz has a point.  Mission creep has happened at NASA.  Not acknowledging that can only put in you in a bad position in the future.

 

From there we can ask, is that a problem?

 

Ted Cruz is claiming it is.  We could push back and ask him for evidence for it.

 

We could also look and ask is there a way we can do what we are currently doing in a better way.

 

Can we bring in different people?

 

Would that help?

 

Can we do it more efficiently?

 

etc.

 

We can start to make the argument that either the best way to do what we are doing is to continue to let NASA do it or to say, hey we can address Cruz's issue and continue to do what we've been doing.

 

In my experience, responding nefariousness/stupidity with nefariousness/stupidity doesn't have a high rate of success.

Edited March 16, 2015 by PeterMP

[mcsluggo]

No, it isn't "Air Force One", The President needs to fly, it's part of the gig. Does his wife need to take a separate Jet? Sometimes; sure, but not this time. This time it was a waste of money and spits in the face of people that care about climate change.

 

I don't think the debate is really climate change, it's the political agenda attached to it. That becomes more obvious when the President (who says climate change is important) does things like this. See also: Al Gore.  

 

it is true that in this case the two probably should've flown together (absent TONS of information that neither of know, of course, that quite possibly could easily point out why in this case they shouldn't?)

 

but at the basic level what we really have is two very separate offices planning very different schedules, that actually didn't coincide (they weren't going to the same event), and they probably just didn't notice that they were going to be in the same city at the same time.  I think (but am not sure) that the first lady's logistical team is in the old executive office building (next door to the whitehouse), and the President's logistical team is in the west wing (of the actual whitehouse).  Planning this sort of thing is a pain in the arse, and VERY expensive, and for reasons that are not the fault of any president 

 

(for the record, i always got irritated when people got on W's ass for the same sorts of topics)

[No Excuses]

We can start to make the argument that either the best way to do what we are doing is to continue to let NASA do it or to say, hey we can address Cruz's issue and continue to do what we've been doing.

 

You can propose to NASA that it has to use its allocated funds exclusively for space exploration. But then you also have to propose on who picks up the slack for all the climate science data they generate and analyze and the funding required to basically take over NASA's role in studying climate science. I don't necessarily disagree with the premise of Cruz's argument. But Ted Cruz is advocating only the initial step and I highly doubt he is interested on what comes beyond it.

Edited March 16, 2015 by No Excuses

[No Excuses]

Just to put it in context, Table 1 has a list showing funds allocated towards studying global change.

 

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43227.pdf

 

That's a substantial amount of funding that you either have to relocate from NASA to another agency or completely create a new one.

[twa]

we do have NOAA

[Mad Mike]

1.  I think you over estimate the influence NASA has, at least with respect to climate change.  High ranking NASA scientists have supported doing something about climate change for about 2 decades now.  But we are as far from actually doing anything than ever.  Sometimes bringing in new people/organizations helps.  The BEST temperature series did more to diminish (it isn't gone) talk about issues with the global temperature data than anything before it.

 

2.  Even if you think the person that you are dealing with has some nefarious objective, I think it is best to deal with the actual facts and information.

 

Ted Cruz has a point.  Mission creep has happened at NASA.  Not acknowledging that can only put in you in a bad position in the future.

 

From there we can ask, is that a problem?

 

Ted Cruz is claiming it is.  We could push back and ask him for evidence for it.

 

We could also look and ask is there a way we can do what we are currently doing in a better way.

 

Can we bring in different people?

 

Would that help?

 

Can we do it more efficiently?

 

etc.

 

We can start to make the argument that either the best way to do what we are doing is to continue to let NASA do it or to say, hey we can address Cruz's issue and continue to do what we've been doing.

 

In my experience, responding nefariousness/stupidity with nefariousness/stupidity doesn't have a high rate of success.

 

**** TED CRUZ. He doesn't have the background or even basic intelligence to be qualified to oversee any scientific endeavor. PERIOD. 

 

What he has is a monumental conflict of interest as a puppet of big oil and coal. 

 

Republicans keep saying that "they aren't scientists" and now they want to stop actual scientists from studying global warming. In what MORONIC and INSANE  world does this make sense? How mind numbingly stupid does someone have to be that they cant see the billions of dollars pumped into politics by oil companies and the politicians who take the money to vote against ANYTHING that cuts into Oil, Gas, and Coal profits?

Edited March 16, 2015 by Mad Mike

[PeterMP]

Look, mission creep has undoubtedly happened with respect to NASA.  Mission creep in general tends to have some negative consequences (not necessarily in this case, but generally it does).

 

There are multiple other organizations that we could shift funding to, including NOAA, NSF, and I'd be shocked if there isn't some climate change research being done at some of the National Labs.

 

But it might also be useful to explore creating something new.  I think we should be doing more research on how changes in technology alter the environment and how that impacts humans.  If somebody proposed a new organization (maybe falling under a pre-existing organization like the NSF, NIH, or CDC) that had that as its focus, I'd generally be supportive of the idea.

 

I also can see (potential) advantages to having an agency that is solely related to space based research and so will aggressively defend the related ideas and funding.

 

Not acknowledging when your opponent has an idea that at least might be a good point (even if unintentionally) long term is going to be harmful for your arguments.

Edited March 16, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

Stop the BULL****. 

 

This has nothing to do with mission creep. It is about a corrupt Ted Cruz trying to cut off any and all funding  for the study of climate change. He is NOT suggesting that we shift the funding. He is suggesting we cut it off.

 

NASA - Earth Science: NASA’s Mission to Our Home Planet

 

 

 

From Weather Observations to Earth Resources Monitoring

At NASA’s inception, the new agency quickly discovered that one of the most fascinating places to explore from space was our home planet. In 1959, the White House gave NASA technical and management direction of the Television Infrared Observation Satellite (TIROS) project, America’s first weather satellite. On April 1, 1960, with the 270-pound TIROS-I satellite’s launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla., a new era was under way. Within five hours after the launch, President Dwight D. Eisenhower viewed photos taken during TIROS’ second orbit and termed the satellite “a marvelous development.” During its 78 days of operation, the satellite transmitted more than 19,000 useful photographs to meteorologists, including stunning images of a typhoon forming east of Brisbane, Australia.

 

 

NASA planners also pushed the idea that studying Earth processes using several disciplinary approaches might hold the key to understanding the climate change phenomenon. The 1986 NASA Advisory Committee Report, “Earth System Science: A Program for Global Change,” emphasized the need to study Earth as a complex system, and helped establish the framework for the multi-billion dollar interagency U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), of which NASA would be the major contributor. The report stated the anticipated achievements of Earth system science would include:

• Global measurements: Establishment of the worldwide observations necessary to understand the physical, chemical, and biological processes responsible for Earth evolution on all timescales.
• Documentation of global change: Recording of those changes that will occur in the Earth system over the coming decades.
• Predictions: Use of quantitative models of the Earth system to anticipate future global trends.
• Information base: Assembly of the information essential for effective decision-making to respond to the consequences of global change.

Following the 1986 space shuttle Challenger tragedy, a NASA task force headed by astronaut Sally Ride listed a Mission to Planet Earth to “study and characterize [from space] our home planet on a global scale,” first among four recommended “leadership initiatives” to help reinvigorate the agency. The Ride Report stated: “Mission to Planet Earth is not the sort of major program the public normally associates with an agency famous for Apollo, Viking, and Voyager. But this initiative is a great one, not because it offers tremendous excitement and adventure, but because of its fundamental importance to humanity’s future on this planet.”

Three years later, President George H.W. Bush proposed the initiation of NASA’s Mission to Planet Earth (MTPE), centered on two large polar-orbiting platforms and a complex data and information system. Bush said at the time, “Let us remember as we chase our dreams into the stars that our first responsibility is to our Earth, to our children, to ourselves. Yes, let us dream, and let us pursue those dreams, but let us also preserve the fragile world we inhabit.”

 

The idea that faced with the threat of global climate change, we re-direct our most effective science organization AWAY from the study of earth sciences is treasonous to human kind.It's moronic beyond all comprehension. It defies anything resembling logic. IT'S ******* INSANE.

[PeterMP]

The idea that faced with the threat of global climate change, we re-direct our most effective science organization AWAY from the study of earth sciences is treasonous to human kind.It's moronic beyond all comprehension. It defies anything resembling logic. IT'S ******* INSANE.

1. I have no idea what your intended purpose for quoting the blocks related to satellite launches. I'm the one that said that's how NASA initially got involved in studying Earth.

2. And in the quoted part, you've gone to completely nonsensical smack talk.

That you'd even start to compare the effectiveness of NASA whose big projects in my lift time have been the shuttle and the Jupiter launchers, both of which have been design/budget/schedule nightmares and their (NASA's) incompetence directly lead to people's death to an agency like the NIH where their last real big project (sequencing the human genome) actually came in under budget, under time, and with greater than anticipated impact is the only insane part of this conversation.

If NASA is the most effective science organization we have in this country, science in this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.

 

And insanity (or ignorance/stupidity) (and blind loyalty) like that long term hurts climate change research and action.

Edited March 16, 2015 by PeterMP

[Mad Mike]

Name another science organization that has put a man (several) on the surface of another heavenly body not named earth.... (crickets chirping)

 

You dont get to lecture me on what is good for climate change. 

 

In fact, after arguing FOR Ted Cruz to oversee NASA, You don't get to lecture me on anything.... EVER. You simply aren't qualified.

[Larry]

You dont get to lecture me on what is good for climate change. 

 

In fact, after arguing FOR Ted Cruz to oversee NASA, You don't get to lecture me on anything.... EVER. You simply aren't qualified.

Shakes head, and wishes for the old :munchout: smiley.

[Mad Mike]

And meanwhile back in the real world.....

 

NASA: Earth Tops Hottest 12 Months On Record Again, Thanks To Warm February | ThinkProgress

 

 

There had never been as hot a 12-month period in NASA’s database as February 2014–January 2015. But that turned out to be a very short-lived record.

NASA reported this weekend that last month was the second-hottest February on record, which now makes March 2014–February 2015 the hottest 12 months on record. This is using a 12-month moving average, so we can “see the march of temperature change over time,” rather than just once every calendar year.

We are experiencing the continuation of the global warming trend that made 2014 the hottest calendar year on record. The very latest sciencesays we should expect an acceleration in surface temperature warming to start quite soon. What is happening now is consistent with that.

[twa]

what is their confidence level that is correct?

[PeterMP]

Name another science organization that has put a man (several) on the surface of another heavenly body not named earth.... (crickets chirping)

 

You dont get to lecture me on what is good for climate change. 

 

In fact, after arguing FOR Ted Cruz to oversee NASA, You don't get to lecture me on anything.... EVER. You simply aren't qualified.

 

Are you really arguing that NASA is the most effective of science agency in the US because of things that happened when I was less than 1?

 

I guess Rome is still one of the most effective countries on Earth in your book too.

 

Where did I argue for Ted Cruz to oversee NASA?

 

Should have figured any argument that contained any nuance would be lost on you.

 

Mike the fact of the matter is the amount that you and I know about climate change ain't even close.

 

And if you're to bullheaded to listen to me, that's fine, but see how far your approach gets you.

 

The fact of the matter is that if the leading NASA scientists on climate change would have effectively minimized Michael Mann with respect to climate change research, we'd be in much better shape than we are today.

 

And people like me wouldn't have spend days trying to explain e-mails like those in the CRU leak.

 

Oh and where was your contribution to those threads?

 

I missed it.

 

Even here.  Do you really think you're contributing anything useful?

 

You don't like what I have to say, then put me on ignore.

 

Other than that, I'll lecture you here on any topic I want even if it isn't something where I actually know more than you, like climate change.

Edited March 17, 2015 by PeterMP

[twa]

It is strange that NASA's toys don't show it being the warmest .....but what do they know right?

[No Excuses]

Not acknowledging when your opponent has an idea that at least might be a good point (even if unintentionally) long term is going to be harmful for your arguments.

 

If you look at Ted Cruz's statement by entirely stripping it of any context, it's a reasonable statement.

 

But I don't understand why you would want to do that. Context matters greatly on this issue, especially when NASA is given the most federal funding out of any other science agency to study climate change.

 

Does Ted Cruz want to shift that funding to another agency? Does Ted Cruz want to shift that funding to a newly created agency? Or in an ideal Ted Cruz world, is the funding stripped from NASA, as well duties of studying climate science not allocated to anyone else? I don't think you can look at this statement by stripping it off the context and it does matter greatly on who is saying it.

 

With respect to the broader picture, I don't see why this discussion is even necessary when there isn't much to suggest that studying climate science is getting in the way of other missions NASA is approaching. At least, nothing to suggest that it warrants a major systemic change that allocates funding from the largest funding receiver to something already existing or new.

Edited March 17, 2015 by No Excuses

[twa]

The discusion is neccessary because he thinks it is . .....funny how some don't wan't to have discusions on their pet issues.

[No Excuses]

The discusion is neccessary because he thinks it is . .....funny how some don't wan't to have discusions on their pet issues.

 

I don't mind the discussion.

 

I'm simply pointing out that it's being spearheaded by a hack with little credibility.

[twa]

You sir have offended Texas ....it;s cause he is Hispanic right?